Winters v. Dix

September 10, 2009

ALLAN WINTERS, PETITIONER,v.WARDEN, FCI FORT DIX, RESPONDENTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Noel L. Hillman, U.S.D.J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

It appearing that:

1. On or about August 16, 2009, Allan Winters, an inmate incarcerated at FCI Fort Dix in New Jersey, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claiming that the failure to place him in a community corrections center ("CCC") for 12 months violates the Second Chance Act, as interpreted in Strong v. Schultz, 599 F. Supp. 2d 556 (D.N.J. 2009).

2. The Second Chance Act modified the pre-release custody placement statute by (1) doubling the pre-release placement period from six to 12 months, (2) requiring the BOP to make CCC placement decisions on an individual basis, and (3) requiring the BOP to ensure that, consistent with the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), the duration of the placement period gives the inmate the greatest likelihood of successful community reintegration. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c).

3. Petitioner asserts the following facts. Petitioner is serving a 63-month sentence and his projected release date is October 24, 2010, with his final 12 months of incarceration to begin on October 24, 2009. Petitioner "was not given any information [regarding his CCC placement] until pressed, until just 14 months prior to his good conduct release date." (Pet. ¶ 14.) On June 16, 2009, Petitioner submitted an inmate request form to Ms. McKinnon requesting consideration for a 12-month CCC placement. The response, dated July 16, 2009, states that the unit team will review Petitioner's placement in two to four weeks. On August 7, 2009, Petitioner submitted an informal resolution form (BP-8) to his correctional counselor, in which Petitioner states that he was told he would receive a five to six-month CCC placement, but he would like to be considered for 12 months in accordance with Strong v. Schultz. On August 7, 2009, the unit manager responded, stating that it was determined that a five to six-month placement was appropriate. On August 10, 2009, Petitioner submitted an administrative remedy request (BP-9) to the Warden regarding a 12-month placement. Petitioner seeks a preliminary injunction directing Respondent to comply with the standard set in Strong v. Schultz for consideration of a 12-month placement.

4. The Habeas Rules require the assigned judge to review a habeas petition upon filing and to sua sponte dismiss the petition without ordering a responsive pleading under certain circumstances:

The clerk must promptly forward the petition to a judge under the court's assignment procedure, and the judge must promptly examine it. If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner . . . .

28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4, applicable through Rule 1(b).

5. The Supreme Court explained the pleading and summary dismissal requirements of Habeas Rules 2 and 4 as follows:

Under Rule 8(a), applicable to ordinary civil proceedings, a complaint need only provide "fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is, and the grounds upon which it rests." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 . . . (1957). Habeas Rule 2(c) is more demanding. It provides that the petition must "specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner" and "state the facts supporting each ground." See also Advisory Committee's note on subd. (c) of Habeas Corpus Rule 2, 28 U.S.C., p. 469 ("In the past, petitions have frequently contained mere conclusions of law, unsupported by any facts. [But] it is the relationship of the facts to the claim asserted that is important . . . ."); Advisory Committee's Note on Habeas Corpus Rule 4, 28 U.S.C., p. 471 ("'[N]notice' pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error." (internal quotation marks omitted)) . . . . A prime purpose of Rule 2(c)'s demand that habeas petitioners plead with particularity is to assist the district court in determining whether the State should be ordered to "show cause why the writ should not be granted." § 2243. Under Habeas Corpus Rule 4, if "it plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in district court," the court must summarily dismiss the petition without ordering a responsive pleading.

6. The BOP's Administrative Remedy Program is a three-tier process available to inmates confined in institutions operated by the BOP who "seek formal review of an issue relating to any aspect of his/her confinement." 28 C.F.R. § 542.10(a). An inmate must generally attempt to informally resolve the issue by presenting it to staff in a BP-8 form. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.13. If the issue is not informally resolved, then the inmate may submit a request for administrative remedy (BP-9) to the Warden. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.14. An inmate who is dissatisfied with the Warden's response may appeal to the Regional Director (BP-10), and an inmate dissatisfied with the Regional Director's decision may appeal to the General Counsel in the Central Office (BP-11). See 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a). Appeal to the General Counsel is the final administrative appeal. Id. The regulations further provide that the Warden shall respond within 20 calendar days; the Regional Director shall respond within 30 calendar days; and the General Counsel shall respond within 40 calendar days. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.18. And the regulation provides that if the inmate does not receive a response within the time allotted for reply, then the inmate may consider the absence of a response to be a denial at that level. Id.

8. Petitioner admits that he did not exhaust administrative remedies by pursuing relief from the Regional Director or the Central Office. He maintains that he should be excused from pursuing administrative relief for the following reasons: (a) Respondent has made administrative relief unavailable by failing to determine Petitioner's CCC placement date early enough for Petitioner to exhaust administrative relief, which normally takes six months, so "the full process of exhaustion will deprive the Petitioner of the specific relief that he is seeking, i.e., twelve month prerelease placement in a CCC" (Pet. ¶ 13); (b) exhaustion would be futile, as "Respondent informed this Petitioner that the ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.